Vrej Agajanian

No Response.

Elen Asatryan

While I do support more housing, I think the purpose of development is always more than just a single purpose. Developments shape the character of the neighborhood and they are multi-decade investments, so it is vital that they complement surrounding uses and enhance the street life. Good quality development also increases the value and desirability of a community. Incorporating meaningful setbacks, quality materials, and open space help make developments more interesting and support a better neighborhood. I think the Downtown Specific Plan should be updated to ensure we have better controls on how we guide future development. I also believe that our commissions should be used more effectively in providing input. All too often the City Council has taken a rubber stamp approach in approving projects, which has meant that projects have not received the attention that they need to receive to ensure that they best fit within the fabric of our Downtown and neighborhoods. One of my top priorities is to ensure that future developments incorporate green spaces for public use, affordable housing, sustainability and make our streets safe and walkable.

Dan Brotman

We need to accommodate more housing, if not for equity reasons than because the State is mandating it. At the same time, we want to avoid discontinuity with the past and end up with a lifeless city. Sadly, recent developments on Central Ave. and elsewhere have not served us well in this regard. They have generated a backlash to density which could have been avoided with better quality and more compatible designs.

From the time I was elected in 2020, I have emphasized the need to improve the Design Review Board (DRB) by appointing individuals who take the time to understand our design guidelines and are willing to say no to incompatible designs. My hope is that a stronger, more independent minded, DRB will over time change expectations in the development community as to what is acceptable in Glendale, and lead to better projects being brought forward.

It will never be easy to balance increased density with the goals of preservation. Compromises will have to be made. Areas along our commercial corridors may have to accept more low-rise mixed use where none exists today. Residential neighborhoods will have to live with a modest increase in ADUs. Some potentially historic structures of lesser significance may not survive. But if we hold developers to account on design, we can meet our housing goals without putting towers alongside low-scale historic homes.

Anita Quinonez Gabrielian

I think that balancing the need for more housing with protecting historic resources entails a two-prong approach: first doing an in-depth and balanced assessment of the costs and benefits of protecting the historic asset; second, strong community outreach to educate the community and assess the community’s desire for preservation of the asset.

Once the desire is firm, apply local, state and federal regulations and protections under the law.

Jordan Henry

I’ll start with a few questions: Do we know what our exact need for additional housing actually is in Glendale? Do we have a vacancy rate for current housing stock? We know the state is requiring certain levels of development, but Glendale has historically done a great job at meeting those requirements. It is necessary to know what the vacancy rate is currently to determine how much additional housing we need in Glendale.

If Glendale chose to implement SB-10, buildings with up to 10 units will be built in residential neighborhoods, adjacent to single-family homes. On Council I will oppose SB-10 outright. Instead, I will work with the Historic Preservation Commission to develop recommendations to help avoid clashes with out-scaled development in Glendale.

Karen Kwak

My response to question #3 already answered part of this question. I’ve noticed that the difference between East Coast cities and West Coast cities is that Eastern cities go up while Western cities sprawl out. The LA area is fairly widely built out, so the only logical way to build in the future is to go up, to meet the needs of our children and grandchildren.

Personally, I am not fond of very tall buildings and have always lived in low-rise buildings, on the first or second floor. I’d prefer newly constructed residential buildings to be 3-5 floors tall and office/commercial buildings to be 5-15 levels high. A big reason why I left NYC was because it felt like a prison of concrete and asphalt, and I have no wish to replicate that in Glendale.

Ara Najarian

The RHNA mandates imposed on the city require us to make housing development opportunities to those who want to develop. It is a mandate that I strongly disagree with but as a responsible councilmember must accept. In certain areas there will be taller buildings proposed and even built next to historic resources. Further discussion of this matter leads to issues raised in the TGHS lawsuit against the city and I will not comment further.

Isabel Valencia-Tevanyan

I would recommend we put a hold on the construction of new tall buildings for the time being and take our time in studying the effects it could have on Glendale if we decided to build more tall buildings, and as a result bring new residents to Glendale that we would not be able to support. A sudden increase in new residents also brings along its new sets of challenges such as high-density congestion, traffic in small and large streets, lack of water, and electrical issues due to higher usage. If a new construction is proposed, that we would most likely not need to have at the moment, we would need representatives from the affected communities in the area of the potential construction when the developers present their projects.